This sort of article, whose sole purpose seems to be character assassination, reveals gossipy, agenda-driven, pro-company propagandists, and separates the author(s) from blogs of real journalistic integrity.

Can pure editorials please be better labeled and separated from news articles? I quite honestly must be missing something.

First, it is an editorial.

Second, even if it weren't, it's not character assassination. It is simply pointing out that some of the analysts are consistently wrong and no one should pay attention to them.

You seem to be justifying the major flaw in the system. There is no feedback. An analyst can be wrong 100% of the time and they get the same press attention as one who is wrong only 10% of the time. Investors should be looking at how accurate a given analyst is before deciding whether to believe their commentary.

This article is a first step at bringing out the facts that would allow investors to evaluate the reliability of a given analysts' opinions. Rather than arguing against this report, it would be more rational to ask for more reports like this. I'd like to see a centralized score card that lists all the major analysts and the accuracy of their predictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joelchu

If anyone care, I wrote right here in this forum a few months ago about 3 things (all prove to be correct)

Shame the rest of the world gone insane. Drove the stock down, but mind you I never think the $700+ price was justify that time anyway. It was just another Wall Street trick to get bunch of suckers in the game ...

I agree with you - and also have been saying that the $200-300 price targets for a 'cheap' iPhone were unrealistic. However, I disagree that $700 was unjustifiable. At the time, the P/E ratio was well below market averages and growth was well above market averages. Typically, when you have a company that is growing faster than the market, the P/E should be higher, rather than lower. The exception would be if you expect the company to fall off a cliff, but that clearly hasn't happened and there was no rational reason to think that it would.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Excellent question.

I was wondering and I am sure experts here will enlighten me.

How far can manipulators like this directly benefit from that manipulation and stay legal? Also what are the a gray areas that can be used by the Musters and Cramers of this world to so benefit from stock manipulation using their powerful soap boxes and what clear is a line they cannot cross?

Lastly, is there any legislation afoot to curb this or is it just the modern day snake oil salesman and 'let the buyer beware' rule applies?

I would have thought at the very least every article they print should carry a list of disclaimers! Just listen to the last 15 seconds of every pharmaceutical ad on television! Your testicles dropping of and going blind might be worse than losing your shirt but not by far for some.

The rules are somewhat arcane, but they're also very specific.

For example, you can not trade stock on the basis of insider information. However, if you get that information from a third party, it's usually OK.

Similarly, you can not spread lies and directly benefit from share price swings by trading shares or options. That is, you can't buy an option betting on a share price decline and then send out false information to drive down the share price - and then cash in your options. However, you can benefit in other ways without difficulty. For example, as an analyst, you can have agreements with multiple customers. If Munster has an agreement with Samsung, he can receive money from Samsung at the same time he's driving down APPL. The two can't be linked - that is, his agreement with Samsung can't say that he gets $10 K for every point that AAPL drops, but it's not that hard to benefit in other ways. At the very least, Samsung is willing to spend money on people who badmouth Apple, so simply writing negative reports about Apple might get him a more lucrative Samsung contract - even without tying it to share price drops. That certainly happens (Microsoft is strongly suspected of having done the same thing), but it's not illegal.

In the end, stock manipulation is very difficult to prove and there are only a handful of cases. Most of those are people who are stupid - officers trading on inside information before public release of financials and similar situations. It would be extremely difficult to prove that an analyst did anything illegal with their stories unless they were stupid enough to actively trade in a company just before and after releasing a report.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

While there ARE most likely orchestrated schemes to defame good companies such as Apple, there most likely AREN'T any such SCHEMES to make so many people buy Apple products and to flood its retail stores on a daily basis (my Apple store is ALWAYS busy!). Samsung wonders how Apple does it. But it's obvious to most Apple customers: Apple simply makes good products which factually do make its customers' lives better. So they're worth it and are naturally in demand.

It's NOT a matter of Apple's "greed." Its profits are simply a SIDE EFFECT of its very effective strategy of putting its products and its customers first and delivering in volume what they need and want.

This is great. They're making a fool out of Munster and it's about time. Take these jerks to task for all of the pontificating and waste they produce. Maybe now he or his colleagues will think a little more before releasing those numbers.

I'm surprised you didn't also mention his mega blunder after the recent iphone 5C/5S keynote, where he said on national TV that the China Mobile deal 99% was happening the next day in China. A lot of people listened and bought on those comments, and they were dead wrong as usual per the Munster standard.

I agree that saying the 5C is less profitable than the 5S may not be true as the 5C is a much improved iPhone5 but then again, this assumes that input costs remain low and given how JPM and Goldman Sachs have been overtly manipulating commodity markets of late... and given that one of the commodities in question was being manipulated by driving the material from one part of Detroit to another over and over would change the costs of one of the iPhone models. .

The question of whether 5C is more profitable than the 5S is a complicated one.

If we look at profitability as a gross margin DOLLAR basis (that is, not as a GM percentage), then the equation is simple (although no one outside of Apple has the data to fill in the blanks):
The selling price difference is $100. If the extras in the 5S (difference in case costs, A7 vs A6, motion processor, fingerprint scanner, etc) are more than $100, then the 5C is more profitable. If the extras are less than $100, then the 5S is more profitable. Calculating which is more profitable on a percentage basis works the same way, but with slightly more complicated math.

Personally, I doubt if those extras cost Apple $100 more, so I'd guess that the 5S is more profitable on a dollar basis, but that's only a guess. Their profitability on a percentage basis would be closer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrickwalker

The 5S, to me, is more iPhone 6 given the CPU alone. To me, the problem with Apple is what are they going to add to the iPhone 6 next year now that iOS7 has been revamped and these new features added?

Only thing I can think of is wireless charging.

I hope not. Wireless charging is inefficient and wastes energy. Even though the amount of energy per phone is modest, with 100 million phones out there, there's an enormous amount of energy wasted (roughly the equivalent of one large power plant). We don't need to be wasting energy and creating excess pollution for the sake of convenience. Apple doesn't need to send that message.

There are wireless technologies that reduce (but don't eliminate) the waste, but they're less convenient. For example, the Wii handheld chargers are tightly coupled and don't waste as much energy, but it's tricky to get the handheld unit lined up properly - and ends up taking longer than just plugging in the cable. I would prefer to see Apple come back with their dock.

What can Apple offer new in the iPhone 6? I don't know either, but I'm sure they'll find something. There are a few possibilities:

- New design is pretty much a given. I don't know what it will look like, but they'll probably maintain their process of making every other phone look different.

- Screen size. While I think the 5 and 6" phones out there are ridiculous (especially with the huge bezels that some have), I think the screen size could be increased slightly without hurting usability. Perhaps 4.3" or so.

- Of course, continued improvements in CPU and GPU speed.

- Universal cellular chip to reduce the number of components and SKUs.

- 802.11ac

Now, none of those are sufficiently impressive to wow anyone, so I expect that there will be at least one great new feature. I just can't guess what it will be.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

I'm surprised you didn't also mention his mega blunder after the recent iphone 5C/5S keynote, where he said on national TV that the China Mobile deal 99% was happening the next day in China. A lot of people listened and bought on those comments, and they were dead wrong as usual per the Munster standard.

The problem is that when someone is wrong as consistently as Munster is, it's hard to choose which of his massive blunders to highlight.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

It's about time someone called these buffoons out on their ridiculously misinformed predictions and commentary. Anyone who's followed Apple through the years knows Joe Wilcox will bend his thought-pretzels into any shape needed to spell 'Apple sucks'. On the surface, Munster appears to be somewhat better, but he's not. His commentary and predictions often lead to the same results the Joe Wilcoxes of the world by making goofy, incorrect predictions and such, which when they don't come to pass, make Apple look bad.

Whoever it was earlier in the thread who coined the term 'Market Trolls', nailed it. So, Market Trolls they are!

There are no smart TVs; No such product currently exists. There are plenty of crap products with slow, unimaginative re-implementations of YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu players, but they're all absolute garbage. This feature set has become a checkbox manufacturers feel they have to tick off before shipping but there are no serious contenders for the throne at this time. None of these products will see another update after they've been superseded by newer SKUs and many of them simply won't work at all (due to server-side API changes) a couple of years later. People still look to Apple because they're waiting on someone to forever change the TV, not poorly integrate the features Roku was shipping the better part of a decage ago.

What can Apple offer new in the iPhone 6? I don't know either, but I'm sure they'll find something. There are a few possibilities:

- New design is pretty much a given. I don't know what it will look like, but they'll probably maintain their process of making every other phone look different.

- Screen size. While I think the 5 and 6" phones out there are ridiculous (especially with the huge bezels that some have), I think the screen size could be increased slightly without hurting usability. Perhaps 4.3" or so.

- Of course, continued improvements in CPU and GPU speed.

- Universal cellular chip to reduce the number of components and SKUs.

- 802.11ac

Now, none of those are sufficiently impressive to wow anyone, so I expect that there will be at least one great new feature. I just can't guess what it will be.

Screen size alone will be an "innovation" that will get people talking!

Honestly I think the next wave of big innovations for Apple will be software. I think the big feature of iOS 8 will be an all new PassBook that doubles as a wallet (the often rumored iWallet that Apple already has a dozen patents for). APIs for iBeacons will be center stage along with retail partnerships already in place.

The only phones that will be able to take advantage of this will be 4S and up, but the 5S and 6 will have faster transaction speeds because of the fingerprint sensor verification. Older phones will rely on a PIN or signature for purchases with the new iBeacon system.

But that said for hardware the 6 will at least be on par with the upgrade Apple gave us with the 4S>>>5.

I said it before the analysis are wrong on purpose. The Wall Street type can not wait to make money so they force the market to do thing that does not make sense. When Apple was rapidly growing they made money, but when it began to slow they still want to make money. How, by short it and driving the stock down. Stock prices usually fall far faster than they ever raise. If you need to make money fast short a stock and tell a bad gloom and doom story about the company and watch what happens.

back in the 90's I love apple stock it was buy of fact since the market usually drove it value down when the fact were out and then sell on rumor since the market drove the stock up on the great rumors. Today you have the opposite, sell on rumors since they are all bad gloom and doom and then buy on the facts since the stock will then go up.

These analysis need to drive the stock up and down otherwise they can not make money for their company. It does not matter if they understand what apple is doing, actually is better they do no know since you can not fact check them and they can get the markets to react.

Tim Cook to "double down" on security, but a series of jaw-dropping surprises have proven that, outside of a steady stream of immaterial leaks, the company remains an opaque mystery to its competitors,

Huh?!? We got exactly what leaked at the event... WTF are those jaw-dropping surprises?

So when Munster released his 5-6 million figure was he including channel inventory? And if not, why? Apple hasn't changed the way it reports stuff. Also since we know Cook hates inventory (he once called it evil) its highly doubtful Apple would make a shitload of phones to sit on store shelves somewhere just so they could report some big launch weekend figure. Apple manufactures what it thinks it will sell.

That's a really good point and he should be called out on it. If all these analysts talk up "shipment" numbers for every other company why wouldn't his 5-6 million figure count shipments and not just sales? Sounds like a double standard - Apple is only allowed to count actually sales, while every other OEM can count shipments.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.

This guy has publicized wildly incorrect speculation about Apple that has harmed the company's image and decreased the share price. He continues to mislead and yet he is regarded as a sage. He deserves his compeuppance in this article. This website also deserves to be publicly scolded for continuing to publish his drivel without reminding the readers to take his words with a pillar of salt.

These analysts are doing what they always do: making educated guesses. Anyone who treats their advice as fact should not be allowed to make their own investment decisions.

I would really like to know who is issuing better or more accurate information? No one? Anyone? Bueller?

Can DED do better?

The point is that this is not about anyone's ability to accurately predict future sales. It is about their behavior once the numbers come in and show how wrong they were. The proper response by Munster and others who saw Apple's actual sales blow away expectations is to praise Apple and discuss the factors that contributed to such a huge launch, such as having two "new" models available (the 5C is "newish" with the colored plastic backs and some minor upgrades over the 5) rather than one and the impact of China and Japan's largest carriers coming on board. Instead what these idiots did is try to minimize the huge gains by saying Apple is fudging the numbers and that most of the increase is "channel sell-in" rather than actual sales. They are insinuating that Apple changed the way they measure sales from how they've done in the past. In other words, "I wasn't wrong, Apple just manipulated the numbers."

It's bullshit and they deserve to be called on it. And you need to quit acting like you don't get that.

After several wrong calls about Apple, Gene Munster has lost any credibility with this bizarre reaction trying to justify his far below estimate. How a serious analyst, who is paid to provide smart analysis and advices to his firm clients can say "the real number was 5.5 million," implying that Apple is cheating his clients, the market and all of us. Who is cheating everyone is Munster with a lame excuse for his miserable call. This only can be named as intellectual dishonesty totally unacceptable specially from a person who is responsible to provide objective financial analysis.

This sort of article, whose sole purpose seems to be character assassination, reveals gossipy, agenda-driven, pro-company propagandists, and separates the author(s) from blogs of real journalistic integrity.

Can pure editorials please be better labeled and separated from news articles? I quite honestly must be missing something.

I take your point. But I have to disagree.

I applaud Ai for doing this followup analysis and calling out analysts.

I wish someone would do it for Money Magazine. The few times I've read it, it's full of advice. I wish someone would go back and look at the advice a year or two later.

Second, even if it weren't, it's not character assassination. It is simply pointing out that some of the analysts are consistently wrong and no one should pay attention to them.

You seem to be justifying the major flaw in the system. There is no feedback. An analyst can be wrong 100% of the time and they get the same press attention as one who is wrong only 10% of the time. Investors should be looking at how accurate a given analyst is before deciding whether to believe their commentary.

This article is a first step at bringing out the facts that would allow investors to evaluate the reliability of a given analysts' opinions. Rather than arguing against this report, it would be more rational to ask for more reports like this. I'd like to see a centralized score card that lists all the major analysts and the accuracy of their predictions.
I agree with you - and also have been saying that the $200-300 price targets for a 'cheap' iPhone were unrealistic. However, I disagree that $700 was unjustifiable. At the time, the P/E ratio was well below market averages and growth was well above market averages. Typically, when you have a company that is growing faster than the market, the P/E should be higher, rather than lower. The exception would be if you expect the company to fall off a cliff, but that clearly hasn't happened and there was no rational reason to think that it would.
The rules are somewhat arcane, but they're also very specific.

For example, you can not trade stock on the basis of insider information. However, if you get that information from a third party, it's usually OK.

Similarly, you can not spread lies and directly benefit from share price swings by trading shares or options. That is, you can't buy an option betting on a share price decline and then send out false information to drive down the share price - and then cash in your options. However, you can benefit in other ways without difficulty. For example, as an analyst, you can have agreements with multiple customers. If Munster has an agreement with Samsung, he can receive money from Samsung at the same time he's driving down APPL. The two can't be linked - that is, his agreement with Samsung can't say that he gets $10 K for every point that AAPL drops, but it's not that hard to benefit in other ways. At the very least, Samsung is willing to spend money on people who badmouth Apple, so simply writing negative reports about Apple might get him a more lucrative Samsung contract - even without tying it to share price drops. That certainly happens (Microsoft is strongly suspected of having done the same thing), but it's not illegal.

In the end, stock manipulation is very difficult to prove and there are only a handful of cases. Most of those are people who are stupid - officers trading on inside information before public release of financials and similar situations. It would be extremely difficult to prove that an analyst did anything illegal with their stories unless they were stupid enough to actively trade in a company just before and after releasing a report.

Then at the very least, having a law on the books stating they must list all compensations they receive directly or indirectly linked to their prognostications would be a good start. That would certainly make for good reading on these articles. I don't ever watch TV these days, only Netflix and Apple TV but on the odd occasion I do those pharm ads have me doubled over. I recall a Monty Python skit based on that idea before anyone actually did it (or had to). I am sure folks become deaf to it but hearing one after a long time not, is like watching John Cleese all over again.

And is always … if they hide pertinent information, that in of itself could be used against them more easily probably than the actual 'crime'. as Nixon and many others have found out.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

What can Apple offer new in the iPhone 6? I don't know either, but I'm sure they'll find something. There are a few possibilities:

- New design is pretty much a given. I don't know what it will look like, but they'll probably maintain their process of making every other phone look different.

- Screen size. While I think the 5 and 6" phones out there are ridiculous (especially with the huge bezels that some have), I think the screen size could be increased slightly without hurting usability. Perhaps 4.3" or so.

- Of course, continued improvements in CPU and GPU speed.

- Universal cellular chip to reduce the number of components and SKUs.

- 802.11ac

Now, none of those are sufficiently impressive to wow anyone, so I expect that there will be at least one great new feature. I just can't guess what it will be.

Interesting, thoughtful post.

I really can't think of anything, either. I agree with the 802.11ac., Making the iPhone a "universal" cell phone, new form factor, and improvements in speed. As far as screen size...maybe they should also offer a larger iPhone. If nothing else, just to shut everyone up! :)

Apple seems to be working on improving all aspects of the iPhone to keep it years ahead of the competition. From alloys/antenna/chassis, glass/display, battery life, chips/speed, software, GPS/maps, camera, security, music, and Siri/voice/search.

With the M7 there seems to be growth potential for fitness.

I for one, was amazed at the improvements Apple made in the 5s from the 5. Speed, Security, Camera/flash. And keep the same beautifully thin and light form factor. Coupled with iOS7 it is a fantastic piece of equipment.

It seems reasonable to me. I've been following Munster for years from MacNN. IN the beginning he was pro-Apple. IN the last few years he's been pro idiot excusing himself and blaming others. Sometimes you have to take out the trash. Munster should be fired... and, so should you!

Its amazing that Gene Munster iS stiill making his notoriously wrong Apple predictions. This Anal-ist us nothing more than a stock manipulator and it's obvious that he has no 'connection' or 'supply check' knowledge of any sort. What's more amazing is that he's still employed by Piper Jaffray.
Not only has Gene Munster been totally wrong for the last 2 years he has the worst record going back further than that.
He appeared on CNBC the other day and continued to defend his horrific predictions and his stupidity.
This is one Anal-ist I think that we'll soon see disappearing as his education , bulls--t and fabricating skills are of little use to anybody
It also makes us wonder about Piper Jaffray. Why would they continue to allow this guy to do what he's doing. Perhaps the SEC needs to get involvedEdited by BUSHMAN4 - 9/25/13 at 8:07am

Then at the very least, having a law on the books stating they must list all compensations they receive directly or indirectly linked to their prognostications would be a good start. That would certainly make for good reading on these articles. I don't ever watch TV these days, only Netflix and Apple TV but on the odd occasion I do those pharm ads have me doubled over. I recall a Monty Python skit based on that idea before anyone actually did it (or had to). I am sure folks become deaf to it but hearing one after a long time not, is like watching John Cleese all over again.

And is always … if they hide pertinent information, that in of itself could be used against them more easily probably than the actual 'crime'. as Nixon and many others have found out.

That would also be difficult to enforce. How do you define 'competitor'? For example, Apple sells phone and computer hardware with software and services being a minor part of their revenues. Google sells advertising with hardware being a tiny part of their sales. Does that make them competitors? Probably not - if you look at sales figures. But Android clearly competes with iOS. So how do you define 'directly or indirectly linked'?

Personally, I believe that analysts should voluntarily list all of their contracts - and investors should simply refuse to pay any attention to the analysts who fail to do so. It all comes down to the investors. As long as investors believe idiots, the idiots will continue to babble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by christopher126

I really can't think of anything, either. I agree with the 802.11ac., Making the iPhone a "universal" cell phone, new form factor, and improvements in speed. As far as screen size...maybe they should also offer a larger iPhone. If nothing else, just to shut everyone up!

Maybe they'll offer a pear-shaped phone. (If you have a teenage daughter, you'll know what I mean).

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

That's a really good point and he should be called out on it. If all these analysts talk up "shipment" numbers for every other company why wouldn't his 5-6 million figure count shipments and not just sales? Sounds like a double standard - Apple is only allowed to count actually sales, while every other OEM can count shipments.

But it's not even about other companies. Apple's sales figures include products sold to resellers. Gene Munster knows this.

well, i'd like to turn our attention to Joe Wilcox. that guy is a true piece of work, a true "hack." a lifelong MS sycophant, he's written dozens of contrived posts bashing Apple. but this one might be the most ludicrous ever - and that's saying something. and he's beyond claim chowder - he just ignores everything he's written that turns out utterly wrong. there is so much of it, why bother?

what's really great is knowing how the huge success of the 5s combined with the huge flop of the Surface and stagnation of Windows Phone must be totally eating him up inside, tearing at his guts ...

I don't fault Gene Munster for not being able to come up with the correct numbers. It's a tough business predicting the future. The disturbing thing to me is that, even when given the correct numbers, he still gets it wrong. I don't think the man is incompetent. So it really begs the question: What's going on here? Why would he publicly shout: Hey, everybody, look at me, I'm an idiot? What does he have to gain? Some are suggesting it's ego, or an inability on his part to admit when he's wrong, but I doubt that.

Which brings us back to the big question: Why would he do this? What does he get from this?

Any suggestions?

It's ego. This is classic for someone that thinks they aren't wrong when presented with opposing evidence to blame others for their error. I've seen this in many people that I live and work with.